Re: MyHAP ?? (was Protocol questions)

["Mal Lansell" <mal@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Obviously Tony can do what he wants, so that's that I suppose.

It always struck me as a bit curious that xPLMediaNet "modules"
all
communicated via their own xpl-like internal system, rather than
using xPL.  I almost felt like it was an entire xPL network in
itself, but shutting out other applications, and it looks now like
that was exactly the plan all along.

Personally, I'd rather have individual media players and sources as
their own xPL apps, allowing people to mix and match and to control
them however they need via xPLHal.  That's certainly the approach
I'm taking with the MediaPortal plugin, and I'll probably do
something similar for the Barix Exstreamer (this is why I want
media.basic back!)

However, my to-do list is getting rather long now.  In order of
priority:

1) xPLDiag - Diagnostics Tool

2) MediaPortal plug-in.  Control playback of media files on an HTPC
running MediaPortal, as well as sending xPL messages from
MediaPortal menus.

3) xPLRouter - secure subnet/internet bridging.

4) xPLMCERemote - xPL messages from the Windows MCE Remote control.

5) xPLExstreamer - control via xPL and to remove the need to install
a web server to provide the audio files.

I'm tempted to knock up a quick xPLExec process spawner first though!

Mal



--- In ukha_xpl@xxxxxxx, "Ian Lowe" <ianlowe@x...> wrote:
>
> > Does anyone have any background on this?  I just went and looked
at it and
> while there are
> > differences, it looks an awful lot like xPL.
>
> It does, doesn't it?
>
> I don't really have much background to add - I'll go on the record
here that
> I don't have information about this that I'm choosing not to
disclose.
> Frankly, I'm as taken aback as the rest of you.
>
> > I don't begrudge him creating a new protocol, but I can't quite
understand
> why a new protocol that is > basically a slight variation of an
existing
> protocol (that he was involved with) exists?
>